Are they really taking over?

[+Silfron Mandotheneset]

I had a thought. I want to see how micros there are out there, in relation to other types of caches. So, go to your profile (or hide and seek a c ache) and find the page of caches that are closest to you. Then, put this info here:

 

Traditional:

Multi:

Puzzle:

Virtual:

 

And how many of them are disabled?

 

I left off Earthcaches, citos, and webcams because I doubt there are many near anybody really. If there are, feel free to add 'em.

 

And:

 

Micro:

Small:

Regular:

Large:

Unspecified:

 

Here's mine:

 

Traditional: 15

Multi: 3

Puzzle: 1

Virtual: 1

 

Micro: 8

Small: 6

Regular: 3

Large: 0

Unspecified: 4

 

3 disabled.

 

Will it prove anything? No, it's just for fun This is what happens when I stay up too late, I come up with crazy ideas.

[+Waazdag]

Traditional: 35

Multi: 1

Puzzle: 1

Virtual: 0

 

And how many of them are disabled? 1

 

Micro: 19

Small:14

Regular:3

Large:1

Unspecified:0

 

To get "creative" one tends to gravitate towards Micro if not Nano caches... Of my "Micro" caches, Four are Nano caches: being less under 1/2 inch in any dimension. Personally I hate micro/nano caches... especially a Nano.... But that being said, I would rather hunt a Nano on a waterfall (as long as a good hint was provided) then a regular container in the middle of a city... City caches suck! A 280 Lb, 5 Ft 6 Man with long hair (waist length) and a "biker" look (black with vest) does NOT do "stealth" very well... I'm just surprised no one has called the RCMP (police) on me yet...

[Dinoprophet]

In order to get my PQs to show more than a few miles from home, I split them up by container type (micro, small, regular, and the rest). I was surprised to see they all max out at about 40 miles from my home coords.

 

I do think, though, that the size definitions have shifted from a couple of years ago. "Micro" now seems to be "nano", or "log only". Things that used to be micros are now considered small. And I've seen some people list nanos as Unknown as well.

 

Edit: adding info the OP wanted:

 

Traditional: 15

Multi: 3

Puzzle: 0

Virtual: 0

Earth: 2

 

Disabled: 0

 

Micro: 3

Small: 2

Regular: 9

Large: 1

Unspecified: 5 (2 of these are Earth, one is a Large that predates sizes, one is described as a nano on the page, and one is a multi that I know has a regular sized final)

Edited September 11, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[Dj Storm]

Performed two searches, one for a radius of 100km (62 miles) around my residence, and the other for 100 miles (161 km). Here are the results:

 

Traditional: 2 (17 on the 100 miles search)

Multi: 0 (0)

Puzzle: 0 (0)

Virtual: 0 (0)

 

And how many of them are disabled? 0 (1)

 

Micro: 0 (1)

Small: 0 (5)

Regular: 2 (11)

Large: 0 (0)

Unspecified: 0 (0)

 

You might think there are very few caches in my country (correct!), the majority of them being traditional regulars (not quite). Let's search around the capital , 20 km (12.5 miles) radius:

 

Traditional: 30 (35 on a radius of 100 km / 62 miles)

Multi: 7 (8)

Puzzle: 2 (2)

Virtual: 0 (0)

Event: 1 (1)

 

And how many of them are disabled? 4 (6)

 

Micro: 26 (29 on a radius of 100 km)

Small: 9 (9)

Regular: 4 (7)

Large: 0 (0)

Unspecified: 1 (1)

 

So, around the capital many caches are micros.

[Mr.Yuck]

Huh? I don't feel like doing all that.

 

But what I did feel like doing was look at the 100 closest caches to my home coords. It took 2.8 miles, and there are 55 micros. That's uh, 55%

 

Then I ran a PQ of the closest 100, but placed before 1/1/2005. It took 16.2 miles and I got 18 micros.

 

So yes, they're taking over the game. Any questions?

 

EDIT: I also ran the closest 100 on my start date (8/19/2003), and in 39.7 miles got 4 micros, one of which I know to be a multiple time muggled regular changed to a micro. I know, my numbers don't prove anything but I think it's fun. I would have done what the OP suggests, but I still don't understand.

Edited September 11, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Mr. 0]

On my first page of closest caches, with the furthest cache being 2.3 miles, and the closest 0.5mi from my home coords.

 

Traditional: 11

Multi: 5

Mystery: 3

Earthcache: 1

 

Micro: 7

Small: 11

Unspecified: 2 (one of these is the Earthcache)

 

Of these 2 are disabled. One of those disabled caches is owned by me.

[+Star*Hopper]

Huh? I don't feel like doing all that.

 

 

Me either.

 

If you want a good representation of what's out there, just look at as many samples as you'd like, of any cross-section of cachers' finds -- specific area or at random -- and plot several curves based on each. I'd theorize an averaged plot would duplicate (or, near enough) what your method would 'prove'.

 

But it's no secret there are FAR more micro traditionals than any other. Compare the curve for someone with 5000 finds, someone with 1000, & someone with only a couple hundred. See?

 

~*

[Dinoprophet]

Huh? I don't feel like doing all that.

 

 

Me either.

 

If you want a good representation of what's out there, just look at as many samples as you'd like, of any cross-section of cachers' finds -- specific area or at random -- and plot several curves based on each. I'd theorize an averaged plot would duplicate (or, near enough) what your method would 'prove'.

 

But it's no secret there are FAR more micro traditionals than any other. Compare the curve for someone with 5000 finds, someone with 1000, & someone with only a couple hundred. See?

 

~*

Theories and statistics? That isn't representative of what's actually out there. You might look at a numbers hound who only does micros in parking lots all over the country. The person with a couple hundred might only have been doing this for a month but still found all micros, or they may have been doing it for years and only do regulars on mountain hikes.

 

Pocket Queries and searches tell you what exists. Those tell me, in my area anyway, that things are close to equal between sizes (assuming proper classification, which isn't a good assumption, but it's all we have to go on no matter how we do this)

[CoyoteRed]

I do think, though, that the size definitions have shifted from a couple of years ago. "Micro" now seems to be "nano", or "log only". Things that used to be micros are now considered small. And I've seen some people list nanos as Unknown as well.

Yes, the "nano crowd" has definitely caused a shift. I first heard about film cans being listed as smalls about a year ago. A local had visited a not-too-distant haven for micros and told me about it. There was a new cacher locally that had listed a couple of micros as smalls because they were a little larger than film can.

 

A while back I had only removed micros from my PQs for areas a bit distant from home. My PQs for an area are split up by date. So when a PQ that should been only getting smaller started getting larger I investigated. Someone had started changing their caches' sizes from micro to unknown. Now, you don't have even a close number of micros compared to the rest if folks are playing fast and loose with the sizes. Another reason simply filtering on size won't work to provide you with better caches to choose from.

 

The number of micros in our area is about the same percentage-wise, but are the capsule/nano style. I haven't found them all, but I don't know of one that has trades in it. The style of location they've been placed is different, too.

 

I don't mind a good micro. Micros have their place in the caching world. I don't like trache; lame caches that don't entertain, leave you wondering why the placer brought you there, etc. Doesn't matter the size. Unfortunately, most of these are micros.

Edited September 11, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

Theories and statistics? That isn't representative of what's actually out there. You might look at a numbers hound who only does micros in parking lots all over the country. The person with a couple hundred might only have been doing this for a month but still found all micros, or they may have been doing it for years and only do regulars on mountain hikes.

 

Pocket Queries and searches tell you what exists. Those tell me, in my area anyway, that things are close to equal between sizes (assuming proper classification, which isn't a good assumption, but it's all we have to go on no matter how we do this)

The OP's plan doesn't tell you what's really out there, either. Since most people don't live in atruly rural area, most of us will certainly have more traditional micros near us than any other type/size.

 

Come to think of it, even if we could pull a static PQ of all the caches in the world, this wouldn't tell us if micros were 'taking over'. It would only tell you how many of each kind you had.

 

To see whether non-micros are being pushed out of the game, as some peopler infer, you don't even need to know how many micros are out there. You merely need to take a look at the number of non-micros that are out there and compare it to the number of non-micros that used to be out there.

 

I can't help you with thise historical analysis, but others can. I know that Markwell used to keep data on the number of caches (by type and size) that was hidden in the Chicago area. It would be interesting to see if the raw number of non-micros has started trending downward or continues to grow, as shown in previous years.

[+Star*Hopper]

Theories and statistics? That isn't representative of what's actually out there. You might look at a numbers hound who only does micros in parking lots all over the country. The person with a couple hundred might only have been doing this for a month but still found all micros, or they may have been doing it for years and only do regulars on mountain hikes.

 

Pocket Queries and searches tell you what exists. Those tell me, in my area anyway, that things are close to equal between sizes (assuming proper classification, which isn't a good assumption, but it's all we have to go on no matter how we do this)

 

Your hopping aboard a disparate circumstance (ie, how many of your "only does micros in parking lots...", and your other "might haves" do you truly think are out there?) indicates to me you're merely trolling for an argument. Apparently you're sufficiently infamiliar with statistical analysis & don't understand the concept of "insufficient samplings'.

 

I'll stand behind what I said. Else I wouldn't have said it.

End of my participation.

~*

[Mushtang]

Huh? I don't feel like doing all that.

 

But what I did feel like doing was look at the 100 closest caches to my home coords. It took 2.8 miles, and there are 55 micros. That's uh, 55%

 

Then I ran a PQ of the closest 100, but placed before 1/1/2005. It took 16.2 miles and I got 18 micros.

 

So yes, they're taking over the game. Any questions?

 

EDIT: I also ran the closest 100 on my start date (8/19/2003), and in 39.7 miles got 4 micros, one of which I know to be a multiple time muggled regular changed to a micro. I know, my numbers don't prove anything but I think it's fun. I would have done what the OP suggests, but I still don't understand.

Here's a challenge for you.

 

First run a PQ of the closest 100 caches, but filter out all the micros, and see how many micros are there.

 

Then, run a PQ of the closest 100 caches placed before 1/1/2005 but filter out all the micros, and see how many micros are there.

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by Mushtang

[+Star*Hopper]

....outed double post

Edited September 11, 2008 by Star*Hopper

[+StarBrand]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

[+Huntcliff]

I'll play - took 1 minute to do

 

Traditional: 12

Multi: 4

Puzzle: 4

Virtual: 0

 

Micro: 2

Small: 7

Regular: 11

Large: 0

Unspecified: 0

 

3 disabled.

[Dinoprophet]

Theories and statistics? That isn't representative of what's actually out there. You might look at a numbers hound who only does micros in parking lots all over the country. The person with a couple hundred might only have been doing this for a month but still found all micros, or they may have been doing it for years and only do regulars on mountain hikes.

 

Pocket Queries and searches tell you what exists. Those tell me, in my area anyway, that things are close to equal between sizes (assuming proper classification, which isn't a good assumption, but it's all we have to go on no matter how we do this)

The OP's plan doesn't tell you what's really out there, either. Since most people don't live in atruly rural area, most of us will certainly have more traditional micros near us than any other type/size.

True.

Come to think of it, even if we could pull a static PQ of all the caches in the world, this wouldn't tell us if micros were 'taking over'. It would only tell you how many of each kind you had.

 

To see whether non-micros are being pushed out of the game, as some peopler infer, you don't even need to know how many micros are out there. You merely need to take a look at the number of non-micros that are out there and compare it to the number of non-micros that used to be out there.

 

I can't help you with thise historical analysis, but others can. I know that Markwell used to keep data on the number of caches (by type and size) that was hidden in the Chicago area. It would be interesting to see if the raw number of non-micros has started trending downward or continues to grow, as shown in previous years.

Agreed. TWU's method helps some. That's a lot of PQs, though, and we can't account for what's been archived.

Theories and statistics? That isn't representative of what's actually out there. You might look at a numbers hound who only does micros in parking lots all over the country. The person with a couple hundred might only have been doing this for a month but still found all micros, or they may have been doing it for years and only do regulars on mountain hikes.

 

Pocket Queries and searches tell you what exists. Those tell me, in my area anyway, that things are close to equal between sizes (assuming proper classification, which isn't a good assumption, but it's all we have to go on no matter how we do this)

 

Your hopping aboard a disparate circumstance (ie, how many of your "only does micros in parking lots...", and your other "might haves" do you truly think are out there?) indicates to me you're merely trolling for an argument. Apparently you're sufficiently infamiliar with statistical analysis & don't understand the concept of "insufficient samplings'.

 

I'll stand behind what I said. Else I wouldn't have said it.

End of my participation.

~*

Ouch. I guess I was thinking broader than the original method. I understand your method is better than look at the 20 closest to each geocacher's home. But PQs covering the area you want to know about would be better than that. I'm not going to attempt either one.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Not that it means anything to people in another area, but...

 

a PQ of the 500 caches nearest my home shows:

 

500 Caches within 11.6 miles (mostly urban Birmingham AL)

317 Micro 63.4%

57 Small 11.4%

94 Regular 18.8%

2 Large .4%

30 Other 6%

 

A search of My Finds PQ shows:

 

2354 Caches

1342 Micro 57%

212 Small 9%

444 Regular 18.9%

31 Large 1.3%

325 Other 13.8%

 

So based on that there are more micros than anything else in my area, but that's okay since micros are mostly what I hunt!

Edited September 11, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sbell111]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

[+D@nim@l]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

Edited September 11, 2008 by D@nim@l

[+KoosKoos]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

For round numbers, let's say there were 100 total caches in that area pre 2005, 89 of them would be non-micros.

 

If we fast forward, and there are now 1000 total caches in the same general area, and for fun, say that micros are even MORE widespread than StarBrands numbers and make up 60% of hides, there are now 400 non-micro caches (over 4 times what existed before).

 

More micros doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that less non-micros exist. If no one placed an ammo can in the bush outside WalMart in 7 years, then someone placing a nano on the lightpole didn't reduce the number of non-micro hides...it increased the total hides and maybe the micro percentage.

 

Micros are certainly becoming a higher percentage of hides in most areas....but that doesn't mean they're crowding out other hides or taking over.

[+KoosKoos]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

 

Yes, but there's the reason that statistics can mean almost anything. 89% and 69% of how many?

[+KoosKoos]

As another little fun game in "cutting data"...of the 61 caches within 2 miles of my home coordinates,

8 are terrain 5 (13.3%) and 7 of them were placed last year....they're taking over the world!

 

(actually, there is a bicycle track near my house and a local event was held where people placed caches for future bikers)

 

edit: P.S. (and slightly more on topic) Of those 8, 2 are micros, 2 are smalls, and 4 are regulars.

Edited September 11, 2008 by KoosKoos

[Dinoprophet]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

 

Yes, but there's the reason that statistics can mean almost anything. 89% and 69% of how many?

To know if micros are "taking over", you want percentages. But you also need to look at the same area. If pre-2005 you had to go to a 50 mile radius to come up with 20 caches, you need to go to the same 50 mile radius to see what the change is.

[+trainlove]

Doesn't ItsNotAboutTheNumbers.com show you the breakdown of cache sizes for you vs for all users that have uploaded their MyFinds PQ to that site?

 

Micro's are ~40%, Regular is about 30%, Small is about 20%...

http://www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com/breakdown_container.php

[+D@nim@l]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

 

Yes, but there's the reason that statistics can mean almost anything. 89% and 69% of how many?

 

100%

[Mr.Yuck]

Doesn't ItsNotAboutTheNumbers.com show you the breakdown of cache sizes for you vs for all users that have uploaded their MyFinds PQ to that site?

 

Micro's are ~40%, Regular is about 30%, Small is about 20%...

http://www.itsnotaboutthenumbers.com/breakdown_container.php

 

Yes, this thread is getting ridiculous! That's OK, I'm part of it. But I do agree, if the question is are micros "taking over", you have to look at today vs. a set number of years ago.

 

I was also going to bring up INATN.com as well. Yep, out of the thousands and thousands of cachers who have uploaded their My finds PQ's. the overall average of micros as a percentage of finds is about 40%. Happy to say I'm almost at about 1/2 the average. And boy, am I way over the overall average of regulars, although I don't remember the exact percentages.

[+infiniteMPG]

Doesn't ItsNotAboutTheNumbers.com show you the breakdown of cache sizes for you vs for all users that have uploaded their MyFinds PQ to that site?

Just did that and the stat I like the best :

 

730 Finds - Average log size: 60.3 words

 

That's closing in on 44,000 words of text entered for logs I've written.... what's your average log size??????

 

Edited September 11, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[CoyoteRed]

I was also going to bring up INATN.com as well. Yep, out of the thousands and thousands of cachers who have uploaded their My finds PQ's. the overall average of micros as a percentage of finds is about 40%. Happy to say I'm almost at about 1/2 the average. And boy, am I way over the overall average of regulars, although I don't remember the exact percentages.

You really can't compare yourself with folks on INATN as they aren't the "average" cacher. That is a "numbers" site and probably attracts a larger percentage of folks who cache, at least partially, for the numbers. Therefor, there will be a larger percentage of convenient caches in their counts: lower terrains, easier finds, and yes, micros.

 

If Groundspeak averaged it's data, in other words, took a look at the whole picture, then those percentages would be a lot different.

[+sbell111]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

Percentages don't tell the story. Raw numbers is what we need.

[+sbell111]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

 

Yes, but there's the reason that statistics can mean almost anything. 89% and 69% of how many?

To know if micros are "taking over", you want percentages. But you also need to look at the same area. If pre-2005 you had to go to a 50 mile radius to come up with 20 caches, you need to go to the same 50 mile radius to see what the change is.

I disagree. What you really want is to know how many non-micros existed 'back then' compared to how many exist today. Looking at percentages (or even micros at all) confuses the issue.

 

For instance, when I started playing the game, there were no micros within my caching area. I can remember the four caches quite clearly and I know that they were not micros.

 

Let's imagine that today 40% of the caches in my area are micros. Looking at teh percentages, one would assume that micros are well on their way of pushing non-micros out of the game. However, if I don't like micros, it's smarter for me to simply look at the raw numbers for non-micros to see if I should get angsty. Back then there were four non-micros. If there are 1000 non-micros today, I should be quite happy with the state of affairs. The number of micros makes no difference because if I don't like them, I can filter them out.

 

The real question is whether there are caches that I like to be found.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

How many of what type USED to be out there really doesn't matter... only 7 years ago there were zero.

 

Run a PQ of the 500 'is active' caches (set no other parameter) nearest you and break them out, as I did in my last post, and you'll have the current situation in your area.

 

If people do that in enough areas then you will see trends that become statistically significant.

[+Keruso]

Traditional: 15

Multi: 3

Puzzle: 2

Virtual: 0

 

And how many of them are disabled? 0

 

Micro: 3

Small: 8

Regular: 8

Large:0

Unspecified:1, which is my cache

 

this is just my first page of caches near me. There are 2613 in just 50 miles from me. i can do them all, if you'd like me to

[Dinoprophet]

In and around the nearest semi larger town (mine is too small to count plus I hid all but 2 of the closest 20).

 

Pre 2005 - 11% micros

Today - 31% micros

 

That shows some growth.

True, but it doesn't tell the story.

 

Pre 2005, how many nonmicros were out there? How many nonmicros are out there now?

 

I'm no math genius, but my guess is 89% and 69% respectively.

 

Yes, but there's the reason that statistics can mean almost anything. 89% and 69% of how many?

To know if micros are "taking over", you want percentages. But you also need to look at the same area. If pre-2005 you had to go to a 50 mile radius to come up with 20 caches, you need to go to the same 50 mile radius to see what the change is.

I disagree. What you really want is to know how many non-micros existed 'back then' compared to how many exist today. Looking at percentages (or even micros at all) confuses the issue.

 

For instance, when I started playing the game, there were no micros within my caching area. I can remember the four caches quite clearly and I know that they were not micros.

 

Let's imagine that today 40% of the caches in my area are micros. Looking at teh percentages, one would assume that micros are well on their way of pushing non-micros out of the game. However, if I don't like micros, it's smarter for me to simply look at the raw numbers for non-micros to see if I should get angsty. Back then there were four non-micros. If there are 1000 non-micros today, I should be quite happy with the state of affairs. The number of micros makes no difference because if I don't like them, I can filter them out.

 

The real question is whether there are caches that I like to be found.

Is it? If so, then yes, you'd want to know exact numbers. I was taking the question as purely academic, "Are micros becoming the predominant type?"

[+sbell111]

How many of what type USED to be out there really doesn't matter... only 7 years ago there were zero.

 

Run a PQ of the 500 'is active' caches (set no other parameter) nearest you and break them out, as I did in my last post, and you'll have the current situation in your area.

 

If people do that in enough areas then you will see trends that become statistically significant.

Ummm, if all you look at it current numbers, you'll never see trends, even if you pull data on teh entire world.

[+Anonymous']

The closest 100 to my house:

 

Traditional: 77

Multi: 11

Puzzle: 11

Virtual: 0

Disabled: 9

 

Micro: 34

Small: 28

Regular: 34

Large: 0

Unspecified: 4

 

I remember when I started this area had a lot more multi caches and very few micros. I didn't realize that the sizes were so balanced with the closest 100 because I found most of them a while ago and now the caches I go for farther away from home are predominantly micros. A lot of the smalls and micros I find seem unneeded to me or I think that they could easily hide a regular sized cache in the same area.

[Skippermark]

Traditional: 10

Multi: 4

Puzzle: 4

Virtual: 0

 

And how many of them are disabled? 1

 

And:

 

Micro: 10

Small: 2

Regular: 5

Large: 0

Unspecified: 1

[CoyoteRed]

Run a PQ of the 500 'is active' caches (set no other parameter) nearest you and break them out, as I did in my last post, and you'll have the current situation in your area.

 

If people do that in enough areas then you will see trends that become statistically significant.

How can you see a trend on in "right now?" The OP question is over time. Obviously, beginning with cache #1 the percentage of micros, and regular for that matter, was zero.

 

Then it went downhill from there.

 

j/k

 

To see a trend you have to look over time. Are there are high percentage of micros today than a year ago? That's pretty much what he's asking.

 

I looked at my area. Pre-2005 micros were 13.8%. 2005 and beyond is 21.2%. All from the same data set. Clearly a trend up. Taking over? I wouldn't call it that.

 

Out of sheer curiosity, I broke it down by year, 50 miles radius, micros placed per year:

• 2000: No caches in this year.
  
• 2001: 0% placed micros this year.
  
• 2002: 2%
  
• 2003: 21.3% <- Year first trinketless micro. (July)
  
• 2004: 16.6%
  
• 2005: 22.8% <- First LPC. First big-box parking lot cache. First major trache.
  
• 2006: 9.0%
  
• 2007: 16.6%
  
• 2008: 32.1% <- This figure is low because I started ignoring caches almost exclusively micros.
  

* As a point of disclosure, my database does not include archived caches that I have not found.

 

Pretty interesting!

 

In 2003, the first trinketless micros appeared in the area and, in all, about 2/3s of the micros were trinketless. I don't know of any micro placed in 2008 with trinkets.

 

Also note the year 2005 break point and, at least in our area, the backlash. That's were it seems that micros got a bad reputation and folks shied away from them. Few of the folks who had hidden micros before 2005 hid them afterward, even though most are still in the game. Additionally, the micros hidden after 2004 are hidden by a smaller percentage of folks, but when they do hide micros they hide a larger number. 2.18 micros per micro placer before 2005 versus 2.66 afterward.

 

Most of this is rather anecdotal, though. The raw figures tell nothing of the quality of the micro. For me, scanning the micros in GSAK almost all pre-2005 micro were enjoyable. Can't say the same for 2005 and beyond.

 

Also note that the above figures don't tell us anything about the number or percentages of available micros in the area. 34.5% of those micros have been archived.

 

On personal observation note: it's amazing how few pre-mid-2006 caches "got away" (caches that got archived before I found them.) Only six! Four of which we attempted.

[+briansnat]

My first page =

 

Traditional: 17

Multi: 3

Puzzle: 0

Virtual: 0

 

And how many of them are disabled? 0

 

And:

 

Micro: 2

Small: 6

Regular: 11

Large: 1

Unspecified: 0

 

As far as the closest 500:

 

Traditional: 413 (82.6 percent)

Multi: 25 (5 percent

Puzzle: 61 (12.2 percent)

LBH: 1 . (02 percent)

 

And:

 

Micro: 70 (14 percent)

Small: 150 (30 percent)

Regular: 255 (51 percent)

Large: 2 (.4 percent)

Not Chosen: 15 (3 percent)

Other: 8 (1.6 percent)

 

 

Micros are on the increase. Last time I did this they were only 13.3 percent

[+Harry Dolphin]

Nearest 20?

Traditional: 15

Multi: 0

Mystery: 5 (Of course, 4 of those are mine)

Virtual: 0

 

None disabled

 

Micro: 4 (1 is mine)

Small: 7

Regular: 9

Large: 0

Unspecified: 0

 

But that only covers 2.3 miles...

 

As to whether they're taking over? There are definitely a higher proportion nowadays. 9 new caches about 8 miles east of here. 6 are film canisters, with no ziplocks, and nothing holding them in place. But, they won't last very long. (Film canister tucked behind the post in a guard rail next to the water tower? Lots of nearby spots for a Lock and Lock. Oh, well.) Not to say that micros don't have their place. I've got a few. And they get more finds than my regular sized caches.

[+Team Mumu]

I live about 30 miles north of NYC, so there are plenty of parks and preserves where full size caches can be hidden near home.

 

The first page of caches near my home has 20 caches within 2 miles:

Traditional 11

Puzzle 7

Multi 2

None of these are micros, 6 are listed as small, and 14 as regular (5 of them are mine).

 

Looking at the nearest 100 caches (within 6.6 miles of home):

Micro = 6

Small = 18

Regular = 75

Virtual = 1

 

So there are only 6% micros, but the first one didn't show up until 2006, followed by 3 more in 2007.

 

Number of caches by year hidden.

2000 - 2

2001 - 6

2002 - 4

2003 - 7

2004 - 8

2005 - 14

2006 - 18

2007 - 32

2008 - 9

 

A few older caches have been archived, but not that many, so we've definitely seen an increase in caches in the last couple of years, with maybe 10% micros cropping up.

[Mr.Yuck]

I was also going to bring up INATN.com as well. Yep, out of the thousands and thousands of cachers who have uploaded their My finds PQ's. the overall average of micros as a percentage of finds is about 40%. Happy to say I'm almost at about 1/2 the average. And boy, am I way over the overall average of regulars, although I don't remember the exact percentages.

You really can't compare yourself with folks on INATN as they aren't the "average" cacher. That is a "numbers" site and probably attracts a larger percentage of folks who cache, at least partially, for the numbers. Therefor, there will be a larger percentage of convenient caches in their counts: lower terrains, easier finds, and yes, micros.

 

If Groundspeak averaged it's data, in other words, took a look at the whole picture, then those percentages would be a lot different.

 

I agree with this. I was in no way saying 40% micros was a worldwide average or anything. Heck, I showed that it's 55% for the first 100 from my home coords. INATN.com definitely attracts active cachers, although not necessarily all "numbers cachers".

 

I can speak for 5 somewhat random areas:

 

1. Buffalo/Niagara Falls (where I live)

2. St. Catharines, Ont. (across the international border)

3. Scranton, Pa. (frequent bi-ness trips)

4. Middlesex County, N.J. (frequent bi-ness trips)

5. Newport, R.I. (frequent bi-ness trips)

 

They all have boatloads and boatloads more micros then in 2003-2004 when I was a newbie. And I don't need no PQ's to notice it.

[+Former Hawkeye]

A non-micro is RARE in Fargo/Moorhead area now. I'm one of three people who will hide a non-micro. Why-it costs more and you have to think more to come up with a good place than a nano. I go down to St. Paul/Minneapolis when I want to find an ammo can with trinkets.

Guess if I don't like it-I can go back to riding my bicycle all the time.

[Dj Storm]

How the caches "evolved" since I started (august 2006):

 

At that time geocaching.com listed 44 caches in my country: 42 traditionals and 2 multis.

Micro: 3 - 7%

Small: 5 - 11% (and this is a small: http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/fa1ebd...c2f23e09f25.jpg )

Regular: 31 - 71% (78% if we add the 3 unknowns)

Large: 0

Unknown: 5 - 11% (of which 3 are regular, 1 small, 1 really unknown)

 

Now there are 257 caches listed (+ 1 event):

Traditional: 244

Multi: 11

Puzzle: 2

 

Micro/small/regular/unknown:

2008: 31 / 20 / 69 / 1 - 18% micro (26% of new placements)

2007: 10 / 19 / 43 / 0 - 11% micro (14% of new placements)

2006: 4 / 5 / 24 / 3 - 8% micro (11% of new placements)

2005: 1 / 1 / 11 / 0 - 4% micro (8% of new placements)

early: 0 / 1 / 12 / 2 - 0% micro

[+Silfron Mandotheneset]

Wow! Man, I wish I could've checked this sooner, that was a lot of reading.

 

Anyway like I said the point wasn't to prove anything really (as others have said you'd have to look at numbers over time), it was just meant as a random activity.

 

So... no one get mad at me

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Another angle.

 

On my cache shelf I have.

3 Micros (One Nano)

4 or 5 Decon

40 or so Ammo Cans.

6 or so Pieces of tupperware all regular or larger.

 

These are the next caches that I'll be placing. I think you can see that Micro's are not taking over my caching world.